Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 00:11:27

“The U.S. has huge amounts of untapped oil, but pesky politicians and environmentalists won't let us get it.” That’s the indignant cry we hear over morning coffee these days.

So, George Bush proposes we roll-back the ban on off-shore drilling to ease oil prices.

Ease oil prices? When? Not today and not tomorrow…maybe never.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, “Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

The conclusion:

“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017….Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

Image

According to the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade. Places like the Atlantic coast, thought to be rich in natural gas, lack drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure.

“Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.”


What about ANWR? (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) How much oil is there?

 95% Probability 5.7 billion bbls = .5 mbpd
 Mean (Expected)10.3 billion bbls = .9 mbpd
 5% Probability 16.0 billion bbls = 1.9 mbpd

 Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from the time of approval to explore and develop ANWR to the first production of oil.

 From first production to peak will take 3 to 4 more years where the production rate peaks at .9 million barrels per day.

 EIA estimates that if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, oil wouldn't flow at full tilt at .9 mbpd until 2025.


By 2030, the US is projected to consume 22.8 mbpd. Today, we consume 21 mbpd.
22.8 mbpd divided by 24 hours = .95 mbph

 .9 mbpd is 95% of one daily hour US demand

 Conclusion: ANWR would power the US for 57 minutes/day, the rest would have to be imported.
 EIA, best case scenario would reduce oil prices by $.30 to $.50 per barrel

 Reduce oil imports from 68% to 65%. Today, we import 60% of our oil.

Not to mention, 2 million barrels a day would need to be balanced against steep production declines expected in many non-OPEC areas like Russia, Mexico and the North Sea over the next several years.

US oil production has been in terminal decline since 1971 from a height of 9.6 mbpd to barely 5 mbpd in 2008. Even the discovery of oil in Alaska in the 1980’s was unable to reverse this decline.

We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.

Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.

We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby biofuel13 » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 00:29:34

Wow! Spectacular post. Thanks a ton for the great info!
User avatar
biofuel13
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed 07 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Chaska, MN

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby joeltrout » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 00:52:06

Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout
joeltrout
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 01:01:57

joeltrout wrote:Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout


Sure we do. Powerdown all aspects of our lives.

Developing more energy is what scares me.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby dinopello » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 01:03:02

The political fact is that as long as you have politicians, TV personalities and what not beating the drum, you will have a significant number, perhaps the majority of people who will believe that the cause of their problems are the restrictions on drilling. I think the best we can hope for is that our government is not subsidizing the exploitation.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby syrac818 » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 01:06:28

Over the past couple of years, I haven't really enjoyed most of Monte's post. Just relentlessly doomer, with the annoying doomer catch phrases and one liners attached.

But this is an excellent, excellent post. Totally breaks down the facts of a fairly convoluted issue that's at the top of the top of the headlines. Really appreciate your work on this - thanks.
User avatar
syrac818
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 01:24:42

syrac818 wrote:Over the past couple of years, I haven't really enjoyed most of Monte's post. Just relentlessly doomer, with the annoying doomer catch phrases and one liners attached.

But this is an excellent, excellent post. Totally breaks down the facts of a fairly convoluted issue that's at the top of the top of the headlines. Really appreciate your work on this - thanks.


Thanks! Same homework went into this post as my "doomer" posts that did the same thing..."broke down the facts."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby Electric_Economy_2025 » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 01:34:36

MonteQuest wrote:
joeltrout wrote:Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout


Sure we do. Powerdown all aspects of our lives.

Developing more energy is what scares me.



I like how you always say power down, instead of saying several billion people must die, I guess it's easier for you to talk about it then huh ?
User avatar
Electric_Economy_2025
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue 01 Apr 2008, 03:00:00

lifing the ban on continental shelf oil exploration

Unread postby phaster » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:03:31

kinda amazes me that politicians and the american public don't understand there are two sides to the peak oil equation which on one side there is supply and on the other side there is demand.

Democratics like obama think that conservation is the key and are against lifing the ban by congress of drilling for oil on the US continental shelf, and republicans seem to be of the mind that opening up the US continental shelf will solve the problem of high gas prices faced by US consumers...

Am I the only one who thinks both the traditional political party propganda by republicans and democratics is BS! By that I mean so called political leaders are basically too chicken shit to actually lead and too beholding to entrenched business interestes like oil producers, auto manufactures, tree hugging environmentalists, etc. to see that the problem of high gas prices is related to our own personal consumer choices...

Guess what I'm ranting about is I want the democratics to be more willing to let oil exploration happen off the coast, and republicans to stop bitching about how CAFE standards are going to put auto companies out of business.

Saw Obama on the evening news this evening and his position was basically he was against off shore drilling, in the meantime McCain was for drilling off the continental shelf. What I want one or both these presumptive nominee(s) to propose is allowing drilling off the continental shelf in exchange for increasing the lame CAFE standards of 35 mpg by 2020

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/19/pres ... -into-law/

to something more challanging say CAFE standards of 45 mpg by 2015, I figure something like this would help solve several different problems, like peak oil and global warming.
truth is,...

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-B.org
User avatar
phaster
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:17:13

MonteQuest wrote:
joeltrout wrote:Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout


Sure we do. Powerdown all aspects of our lives.

Developing more energy is what scares me.

You must be terrified of a future where we aren't actually in overshoot then, where global energy production is several times larger than it is today.

Every barrel of oil will be displacing coal in that timeframe, seeing CTL is what the alternative is going to be.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:17:55

Drifter wrote:This is exactly why the US and other countries will self-destruct. Refusal to voluntarily power down. Instead, full throttle off the cliff.

I'm just curious how you actually expect this to unfold.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby AgentR » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:21:15

The ban does have one interesting advantage as is. The longer we hold it untapped; the more valuable it becomes.

Eventually though... Granny NewEnglander is gonna throw a fit when she can't heat her home, and well, that'll be the end of THOSE bans, whether they make any difference or not.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby mefistofeles » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 06:05:29

The political fact is that as long as you have politicians, TV personalities and what not beating the drum, you will have a significant number, perhaps the majority of people who will believe that the cause of their problems are the restrictions on drilling.


Lol! Anyone with a shred of sense can tell you that the main causes of peoples' problems are people!
User avatar
mefistofeles
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby Aaron » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 08:02:41

Dezakin wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
joeltrout wrote:Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout


Sure we do. Powerdown all aspects of our lives.

Developing more energy is what scares me.

You must be terrified of a future where we aren't actually in overshoot then, where global energy production is several times larger than it is today.

Every barrel of oil will be displacing coal in that timeframe, seeing CTL is what the alternative is going to be.


Great Alternative... Canada's Tar Sand projects are a peek at what the Rockies will look like after CTL gets into full swing.

Image
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby TheDude » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 08:13:00

Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, from the EIA at the request of Alaska Senator Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens.

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.


Offshore drilling:

Offshore Development Policy in the United States

National Assessment 2000 Maps

The "drilling bans" you hear about by and large aren't, they're moratoria on sales of leases.

Anybody know if the majors over the years have been conducting much exploration of their leases?

And, lest we forget, you have to drill an actual test well to confirm that a field has oil or gas in it. Seismic surveys can show a huge field, but for all you know it could be full of salt water. This was the case with the early 80s Mukluk project, where over $2 billion was spent - most of that on land leases, with $150 million on the well, including an artificial island and causeway. Most expensive dry hole ever.

Consider the cost of UDW test wells - $80-120 million. With structural prices rising all the time, they aren't getting any cheaper, either.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: lifing the ban on continental shelf oil exploration

Unread postby FrankRichards » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 08:20:43

I completely agree. The polarization is insane and a disaster in the making. I'm not sold on ANWAR, but offshore production does seem to work pretty well these days. We know there's oil of California, and the Eastern GOM is a really high probability. A few more Thunder Horses would slow the decline significantly.
User avatar
FrankRichards
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: lifing the ban on continental shelf oil exploration

Unread postby Aaron » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 08:27:41

The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: lifing the ban on continental shelf oil exploration

Unread postby benzoil » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 08:38:40

Give it time. There will be no need for CAFE standards because the "invisible hand" will work it's magic.

Give it time. There will be drilling off California, the Eastern GOM, ANWR and your backyard of there is the slightest possibility of oil.

BTW, members of the Democratic Party are Democrats, not Democratics. :)
TANSTAAFL
User avatar
benzoil
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Windy City No Longer

Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts

Unread postby Snik » Thu 19 Jun 2008, 11:56:19

Sorry to rain on the do nothing parade here, but what you are saying about the effect of ANWR, offshore, and other drilling is just plain wrong thinking. As a petroleum geologist in the US I understand better than most the risks involved in drilling for reserves of any kind. But, we are, and have been willing to take those risks for the last 100 yrs in this country to help supply us with the resources we need. If I took your philosophy that if it doesn't solve the problem completely then it's not worth doing we would have stopped drilling for oil and gas in this country long ago.

If we all used that criterea for deciding whether we should do something toward either solving or at least mitigating the impact of peak oil, nobody would do anything. It is a multifaceted problem which must be attacked on all fronts. Everything from conservation, to research and development of new technologies, to drilling for new reserves, to additional use of existing renewable energy sources. To say that any one of these things is going to be THE answer is, of course, absurd. However, the aggregate of all of them is a different story altogether.

One idea regarding some of these other sources of crude would be for the feds to dedicate the royalty payments from that additional production to research and development of alternative sources of energy. It would cost the American people nothing, and would be a painless way to do it.

Keep in mind too, that every barrel we don't produce here is a barrel we have to import. ANWR alone would reduce our trade deficit by over a trillion dollars over it's lifetime. Thats a trillion dollars that stays in this country instead of going overseas.

As far as our elected officials go, we in the oil industry have been telling them for a long time that this problem was coming. Instead of taking a longer view of things to come they were more than happy to see the Saudis flood the market with cheap crude in the 80's and 90's. Their aim was to discourage drilling outside of OPEC, and decimate the industry as a whole. They were successful. The oil industy in this country was largely dismantled during that period, with over 500,000 jobs lost, rigs scrapped, infrastructure dismantled. Plus, while all this was happening our appetite for crude continued to grow unabated. Our addiction to cheap crude resulted in a lack of development, and deployment of other technologies. The fact that we are now in a crisis situation is no surprise whatsoever to us.

Will drilling alone solve this problem? No. But why would we leave those reserves in the ground? For what purpose? They are doing no one any good underground.
User avatar
Snik
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests